Obama Care Upheld, Now What?

Submitted By jadrew78
Words: 770
Pages: 4

Jeffrey Drew
ENG 101
Mrs. Ramsey
Obama Care Upheld, Now What? During late June of 2012 the United State Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obama Care. This decision would spark the pens of political cartoonist across the nation. One such artist came to be David Fitzsimmons of the Arizona Daily Star. David Fitzsimmons has been a political cartoonist for the past 27 years for various newspapers, and has his cartoons syndicated to over 700 websites worldwide (LinkedIn). Within a month of the Supreme Court’s decision David penned two cartoons that are very similar to each other. Over these two entries David uses illogical rhetoric to convey the republican desire to destroy the Affordable Health Care Act. In David’s first entry on the subject he explores the republican despair on the Supreme Court up holding the Affordable Healthcare Act (cartoon1). He starts the strip with a visually upset elephant doctor to represent the Republican Party, and a patient labeled Obama Care to represent the Affordable Healthcare Act. The doctor informs the patient that he has bad news. Regardless of all their efforts, he is going to live on another day. The doctor walks out of the panel voicing his displeasure over the court’s decision to uphold the bill, leaving a visually happy patient in frame. Fitzsimmons uses visual cues frame to frame to convey each party’s feelings as they progress throughout the strip. The doctor face moves from anger to disgust, while the patient moves from worried to shock and then finally happiness. Another cue in the tone of this strip is the graph the doctor is holding. A single upward arrow to represent the court’s support for the bill. Fitzsimmons also uses syntax to convey the doctor’s feelings. A doctor would never say it is bad news for a patient to live. The way it is used in this context shows the Republicans disappointment over the decision. Since it’s signing in 2010 the Republican Party has contested the constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare act. The subject of their ire with in the bill was a provision that states, all Americans be required to buy health insurance. This provision is referred to as the individual mandate. The contention is that such a mandate violates the individual liberty to choose whether or not to have insurance. The court found that such a mandate could be construed as a tax and therefore legal for congress to levy on the people (Fox News). Since the Republican Party could not nullify the law in the courts, they moved on to a so called plan b. This plan would be to hold the wallet of the government hostage. Step one of this plan is to not allow the cap on which how much debt the government can hold to increase. Step two is to systematically defund government programs, until congress has no choice but to meet the demands the